Hmm....40 minutes I won't get back.Democrat Socialists are not true 'socialists' - which I agree. Actually - any time we get socialists running (and then ruining) a country - the leftists claim....'well - they didn't try TRUE socialism' ...ditto for communism...'communism has never really been properly tried'.What is not discussed here - is it moral to push for re-distribution from workers to non-workers...and if you do so, what happens? The morality of socialism, even when done by Bernie's methods (or the bimbo from the Bronx - Ortega-Cortez) - you end up with suppressing more and more innovation and growth - and you subsidize inefficiency and dependency.Free college? Sounds great. BUT - in Europe - most high school students DON'T go to college - because only those that pass rigorous admissions tests get in. Sounds like a good thing, because we can't afford to put ALL high school students into college (especially for many useless degrees that are offered.). This topic wandered all over the 'mat' - rather than being focused on 1 or 2 specific topics. College - consider what I said above. Health care - consider that government has NOT made things cheaper - but vastly more expensive. AND - when the government controls things - and for a "Medicare for All' - it means that the use of it will skyrocket ..so costs skyrocket. Then what? Do what Canada did - what the UK did....rationing. Long lines and long wait periods. If you are wealthy- go to another nation and pay for it yourself. OR - 'liberate' health care - and return to free markets. That is a debate worth having just on its own!I called it a draw. The debate title is true - but it is meaningless. Nations that adapt 'Democratic Socialism' (as envisioned by the DSA, Bernie, etc.) - start with allowing continued private ownership of corporations - but as things start declining - taxes go up, work efforts diminsh, taxes go up more...etc. Then - you have the idea of that dimwitted idiot Elizabeth Warren - pushing for legislation to have 'accountable businesses' where any business doing more than $1 Billion- has to get a 'charter' from the government to operate, and must operate IAW how the government (controlled by leftists) want it to operate...including wages, meeting certain union type demands, etc.....and they drive up costs for the businesses that get the charters (but they can drive out other businesses to eliminate competition. You end up with even more cronyism and less and less capitalism.Face it...Venezuela didn't initially appropriate all businesses. Chavez allowed businesses to operate....allowed the owners to pretend that they still owned the businesses...but as things got worse, eventual appropriation (nationalization) became necessary...and then you FINALLY got 'real socialism'. So - they didn't start out as 'true socialists' - but as their model went from bad to worse - they changed things - and accelerated things to make it worse.DSA types want the 'Nordic model' - which is really private sector capitalism with HUGE safety nets. BUT - tell me which successful country GOT successful by being what they are (blended capitalism with huge taxes and huge safety nets.)? The reality - all these 'successful' countries were successful as capitalistic countries - and as they embrace the nanny state - they start 'draining their reservoirs' of people who embrace free markets and are capable of growing and expanding - instead - they incentivize sloth and indolence. More and more people realize that they can get free stuff for working less - then the hard working people figure that they might be saps to work hard...so they too slack off. This model doesn't work for long.
@mvineyard Your response is very hard to follow. Please keep in mind that in the facebook thread you and Nelson were adamant that Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez were full on socialists, thus I am surprised to hear you say that you agree with the topic.I am both willing and able to debate on 1 issue (a good suggestion you made), healthcare is likely the most relevant one as it has the most political consequences at the moment
@mvineyard remember this kookhttps://www.google.com/amp/amp.kiro7.com/news/seattle-city-councilmember-elect-shares-radical-id/246045525
B.S.Bernie DID praise Venezuela and he said that "breadline are a Good Thing" but obviously they dont now. He praised their 'socialist economic miracle' and when asked about li it the identical aspect of Chavez and his own policies he didnt quibble that he was any different but that he was "running for president of the USA, Not Venezuela." In 2011, Sanders said that “the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina.” the left attributes anything on ones site, written by them or not, to them. Take the 80s Ron Paul newsletter nonsense. Sp the left attributes this to his own belief and again, BS praised the very policies instituted by Chavez.Sean Penn went to V and called Chavez a wonderful man, a good friend saving his country. Chompskie praised the 'Venezuelan miracle'
@nellyj_misesian yer we covered the 2011 'quote' he didn't actually say that, its fake news.Source for the other quotes pleaseAlso do you still want to debate whether democratic socialism is full on socialism?
@benmouse42 yes, I posted as you were speaking and then edited according to what you spoke of. However, he did praise the very policies of Venezuela and only when it went south did the crazies at Vox, who previously had praised vociferously Venezuela previously, now ignores it much like the other socialists do. I live in the Seattle area and the politicians here are actual socialists, Sawant is openly a socialist, closeted Marxist, and she won her council seat so the city is a socialist city.
@benmouse42 I would like to discuss this though. Enjoyed your discussion
@benmouse42 Go back and CAREFULLY re-read what I wrote. My comment, in essence - is that Democratic Socialism is NOT 'full on' socialism....INITIALLY. I mentioned that Chavez, in Venezuela, did not initially 'seize' private businesses and convert them....that came a little later. As Democrat Socialism fails to deliver on its promises - it becomes necessary to do more and more 'mandates' - more force, more government regulations, higher taxes, etc. As Venezuela started collapsing - Chavez, and then Maduro - proceeded to do just that - and it accelerated the collapse of Venezuela.NEXT - your 'refutation' of @nellyj_misesian is incomplete. Maybe you could go to the Bernie Sanders web site - and look at a posted editorial article on his web site...read the last paragraph. Maybe Bernie didn't say it directly - but it appears that he agrees with the thrust of the editorial that is POSTED ON HIS WEB SITE.https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america
@mvineyard Ok it seems the core of our disagreement is whether its a slippery slope, how do you feel about this debate? https://www.qallout.com/debate/5521-democratic-socialism-will-not-lead-to-venezuelan-style-socialism/liveI'm not that interested in debating the 'quote' it seems like a pretty open and shut case of fake news to me, an analogous case you might be more sympathetic to is when the left goes after republicans for things one of their staffers tweeted one time or because of something written by one of their donors etc. Ultimately I care about what the person actually believes and Sanders has said over and over he is not advocating for Venezuelan style socialism@nellyj_misesian sick, I'll make a debate:https://www.qallout.com/debate/5520-democratic-socialism-is-not-full-blown-socialism/liveIf you wan't the topic reworded just let me know, all thats left is for us to tee up a time
Hey @benmouse42 Cool to see you on a debate again. Always fun to listen and.... hey, your kitty is all grown up now! And always nice to see @alot_like_locke on an economic topic!The argument about what is a Democratic Socialist is interesting. Who is more a DS, those that are popular, and claim the title, but don't seriously ascribe to the views, or those who established it and clearly define their policy?My inclination is to go to those who take pains to define the position rather than those who use the title in a very off-hand way. I can't say that's the only way to do it, but it's how I tend to like to do it.I'd simply say the others are sympathetic to the viewpoint. Like those who "lean" libertarian etc... but they can't actually be called one.Cons discussion of Labor unions being a common vehicle for sicialism is well taken. Labor unions arren't inherently socialists, but they are the largest haven for socialism within our capitalist system. So it's a mixed bag. Many in labor would never dream of calling themselves a socialist, others would be more than happy to.I think the resolution is definitely true in terms of the right-wing critique of so-called American "socialists" Equating Obama to Chavez or Castro and so on. That's just silly.Bernie may be a step closer, but still a long road from revolutionary socialism.Anyway, nice honest discussion gents. If not exactly a gripping page turner of a debate. :)